THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS BLOG IS TO SHARE WITH THE READER ISSUES OF HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE FROM A PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVE.
ORDER OF MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG: USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, UKRAINE,CANADA, INDIA,and CHINA.

Thursday, 1 September 2016

Will the majority of
Americans be better off in 2020 than they were in 2016, and will they live in a
more democratic society less oriented toward police-state methods at home and
military solutions to political crises abroad? These are key questions that go
beyond the obfuscation of distraction issues which the corporate media
inculcates into peoples’ heads on a daily basis regarding what matters in
elections. Regardless of who sits in the
Oval Office, by 2020 the small percentage of millionaires and billionaires will
have amassed more wealth under a fiscal policy that transfers income from the bottom
up. The mainstream media rarely addresses this issue because it identifies the
‘national interest’ with the wealthy elites.

For a large percentage of
the working class and middle class, everything from housing to college
education is not affordable amid a widening gap between the few billionaires
who buy influence through campaign contributions and the masses whose living
standards have been declining in the last four decades. Presidential/congressional
elections have made no difference in improving living standards. On the
contrary history of nearly half a century shows just the opposite, a key issue
that the media ignores because its role is to co-opt the masses into the two
major political parties.

The media has been working
feverishly to convince citizens that democracy is equated with elections when
in reality this is an illusion as Mark Twain pointed out during the Gilded Age.
When George W. Bush was president, VIACOM, parent company of CBS, wanted more
tax breaks and it made sure that its news coverage reflected favorably on the
Republican administration, with only minor deviations. VIACOM realized like all
other corporate media companies that unless it refrained from criticizing
Bush’s foreign policy, it would not secure the tax breaks. Therefore, CBS news
coverage was shaped not by the manner that the US conducted Middle East policy
and the facts on the ground ranging from sweetheart contracts to corporations
linked to the Vice President and defense contractors, but in accordance with
VIACOM’s desire to reduce its tax bill.

Besides covering scandals
and controversy of personal lives of the candidates and their top advisors, the
media focuses on cultural and social issues that are important but have nothing
to do with living standards. Largely because the Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump has openly employed racist, xenophobic and misogynist
rhetoric, media focus on ethnicity, race and gender became core campaign issues
to the deliberate neglect of larger all-inclusive social justice issues that
concern all working class and middle class voters. Because the mainstream media
identifies first and foremost with Wall Street of which it is a part as much as
the presidential contenders and candidates on the ‘down ballot’ on both parties,
it rarely covers socioeconomic inequality that has been growing since the
Reagan presidency.

This is not to say that
there are no differences between the Republican and Democrat candidates simply
because the media chooses to focus on certain issues. However, the vast
majority of the people know that the Democrat Party is not that of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
the Keynesian New Deal reformist who modified the political economy during the
Great Depression to accommodate the declining middle class and withering
working class. The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton is neoliberal responsible
for the massive concentration of capital and continued downward socioeconomic
mobility in America.

People know that their
lives and those of their children are not likely to experience upward social
mobility regardless of the election outcome in November 2016. Although both
political parties promise the moon, people know the American Dream is a remote
possibility. For this reason a segment of the voters is angry and lined behind
the self-proclaimed political Messiah Trump while others see salvation by the
first woman president who represents Obama-style continuity if nothing else.
Deep down, they know neither will do anything to change the prospect for the
majority to achieve the elusive dream. Despite election enthusiasm for about
half of the voters and apathy for the other half, according to public opinion
polls, many know that the election will not result in any institutional change
as was the case during the New Deal. The election outcome will make little
difference if any in terms of slowing down the continued decline of the
American middle class, as it will make little difference in the aggressive
military-solution-oriented foreign policy that only adds hundreds of billions
to the public debt. Nevertheless, there are those who are moved by political or
religious ideology who see the election in terms of choice between good and
evil.

Populist Republicans –
social/cultural conservatives with an anti-globalism tendency - want Trump
whose religious and spiritual orientation may not be any stronger than that of
his secular humanist Democrat opponent, but who promises to deliver America
into greatness away from the social/cultural evils of the Obama era; an era
characterized by a perception that there has been greater support for gays,
women, illegal immigrants, and minorities at the expense of angry white males
mostly without a college education. There are those on the liberal camp who
believe that a commitment to the superficialities of political correctness and
advocating transgender bathroom use is somehow equated with the broader core
issue of social justice that impacts the material lives of the vast majority.

The US will face major
challenges not just in the next four years, but in the next decade largely
because its public debt at $19 trillion in 2016 will likely increase much
faster than GDP at just under $18 trillion, especially if Trump wins and
carries out the massive tax cut to the wealthy and corporations.If the dollar was not a reserve currency and
used as a means exchange in many commodities including global energy trade, its
value would not be at current levels and Americans would not be enjoying living
standards at current levels. Now that the Chinese currency is part of the
reserve currency basket with the blessing of the IMF, the dollar’s decline is
inevitable in the next growth cycle of the Chinese economy.

While many political,
economic and social scientists are concerned about the impact of the global
power shifts in the status of the US and its middle class living standards,
they generally relegate blame for the inevitable downturn to: 1. China’s unfair
competitive advantage in the world; 2. Russia’s Tsarist imperial designs on the
regional balance of power; 3. The war on terror; 4. The entitlement programs
and the cost of labor and its destabilizing impact on airlines, tourism, etc.;5. The absence of a fiscal
structure that transfers even greater income from the bottom 90% of the
population and shifts it to the top 10% and within that group mostly to the top
1%.

Neither Trump nor Hillary
Clinton is addressing the challenges facing the American middle class and
workers with viable policy solutions because they are both committed to the
ruinous neoliberal model of economic development. They both know that the
global power shift will not change no matter which of them wins the election,
living standards will not improve, and American decline is inevitable because
both will pursue neoliberal policies combined with costly defense buildup that
only adds to the public debt burden. While rhetoric about safeguarding the
interests of the “nation” as top priority is at the core of the political
campaigns, social justice is totally absent because America’s elites are not
interested in it, as Senator Bernie Sanders repeatedly noted.

Well paid pundits with
allegiance to one side or the other and the corporate media have helped to define
the election agenda that centers around keeping the exact same global military structure
and the domestic fiscal, mo and labor policies that account for what these same
pundits label the “resentment election of 2016”.In short, there is no choice for the voters
other than to cast a ballot to maintain the institutional structure that has
been accountable for the decline of the American middle class since the early
1980s. One reason both candidates have unfavorable ratings around 60% and one
reason that voters are looking to smaller parties or simply refusing to
participate is because they know that elections do not make any difference in
improving their lives or their children.

Symbolism of the Presidency and
Party Platforms

Mark Twain’s quote “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t
let us do it,” may sound like a clever one-liner from the Gilded Age, but it
goes to the heart of the appearance of democracy as a system of popular
sovereignty – will of the people and the social contract - behind which rests a
small socioeconomic elite determining policy designed to maintain its
privileged position in society. The ceremonial exercise of voting for
candidates that the two political parties have nominated and which are
committed to perpetuate an institutional structure serving the elites affords
the illusion of freedom of choice when in fact the result is predetermined.

Contrary to liberal
arguments that the great assault on democracy emanates solely from
conservatives, corporate cash is and has been bipartisan when we follow the
money trail. It is hardly a secret that the political economy shaping the
social structure obviates voting as an effective means to secure a government
responsive to the welfare of all people. Election results matter only on
socio-cultural issues rather than socioeconomic ones. Symbolically, however,
the occupant of the White House makes a difference because historically
Americans view the person as ‘the leader of the Free World’.

Clinton Symbolism: There is no denying that the
Clinton candidacy carries symbolism because she could become the first female
president, just as there was great symbolism with Obama as the first black
president. A closer look at the standard of living and unemployment among blacks
combined with institutionalized racism as manifested in the criminal justice
system and police shootings of black youth reveals that the Obama presidency
made no difference except as a symbol of pride and precedent.Obama was just as neoliberal in his policies
as his predecessor. Obama’s record of interventionism and military operations
in the Middle East and North Africa was not as reckless as that of George W.
Bush, but American covert and overt militarism in the Middle East and North
Africa with continued operations in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan are hardly the
promise of a pacifist president the world expected in 2008. Why would Clinton
be much better in that respect, considering she was part of that administration?

Have women heads of state
around the world made much institutional difference for women, minorities, and
workers?There are those who feel that merely
the symbolism is enough and they ask for nothing more. Trump makes the
symbolism even more striking considering his chauvinist, xenophobic, misogynist
and neo-Fascist tendencies both in rhetoric and style. Trump as a right-wing
populist reflecting a segment of the American public from blue-collar white men
to billionaires makes Clinton appear progressive when in fact she is far from
it, as the primary season against Bernie Sanders and her record clearly prove. In
essence, policy differences between the symbolic woman president and Trump the
“would be political Messiah” will not be significant because the elites have
common interests and always prevail. Besides, no matter the symbolism of the
person in the Oval Office, the US has divided government with Congress
exercising immense power over key issues.

Trump symbolism: This flamboyant egocentric billionaire
with some underlying psychotic tendencies fits the theory of the political
Messiah coming to the rescue of the masses. Reflecting a segment of society
beyond the anti-political correctness angry white working class male, Trump is
the carrier of the Republican Party’s populist wing that includes angry white
men suffering downward pressure in living standards, evangelicals, Tea Party
remnants, gun advocates, abortion opponents, economic nationalists,
isolationists opposed to globalization, and above all who aspire to be
billionaires like him and vote their aspirations instead of their interests.

This would be political
Messiah promising to make America great again, going back to the right wing era
of Reagan, the president who delivered the savings and loan crisis and
Iran-Contra scandal, is ready to take power and lead like a fearless Barbarian
warrior prepared for confrontation, instead of a politically-correct Democrat
or Rockefeller Republican seeking consensus.How does he plan to do this considering Congress has such broad powers
and the US is so thoroughly integrated into the world economy is a mystery.
This is one reason that the symbolism he would bring to the White House
sufficiently scares a number of banks and corporations that they argue his mere
presence would precipitate instability that markets fear. The symbolism of a Trump
victory would encourage various white hate groups like White Lives Matter,
Alt-Right, and many others that include prominent think tanks providing
financing for some of these groups. This would mean that police forces across
the country would be emboldened to shoot first at unarmed black youth and ask
questions later, thus the police-state methods immersed in racism will
intensify because the Justice Department would not be investigating as it has
in some case under Obama. More broadly, the symbolism of a Trump presidency
would be a triumph for chauvinism, xenophobia and a return to the good old days
before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Trump Platform 1. Right wing populism -
Ideologically, Trump allied himself with the populist wing of the Republican
Party that has elements of racism, xenophobia, sexism, chauvinism and
anti-pluralistic tendencies antithetical to a modern diverse and open society.
This is as much a reflection of the ideological orientation guided by think
tanks and media outlets funded by right wing billionaires as it is of the
religious right continuing to assert itself as it has since the Reagan era. The
popular base rejected Rockefeller Republicans like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and
many others. Trump realized that the popular base had moved to the right,
embracing social conservatism with elements of militarism, economic nationalism
and isolationism combined with unilateral militarism. The symbolism of a bully
billionaire riding like a cowboy ready to take on hostile Indians appeals to a
segment of citizens who believe that projection of strength is a valuable trait
in a president rather than intelligence articulated in polite political
correctness.

2. Economic Nationalism – Build
a wall along the US-Mexico border and force the Mexicans to pay for it has been
the populist slogan that encapsulates Trump’s panacea for solving America’s economic
and social problems. Even if the US could build a thousand walls along the
border with Mexico and Canada, the inevitability of its economic decline is a
certainty, along with the downward socioeconomic mobility of the waning middle
class. A thousand border walls do not change the reality that Trump adamantly
opposes raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour in the next five years, and
revising the fiscal structure that has multinational corporations like General
Electric paying no taxes and also receiving federal subsidies through the
Export-Import Bank. Because Trump has to distract the Republican popular base
from the real causes for their economic misery, he resorts to xenophobia that has
deep roots in American history and it is currently a trend throughout the Western
World.

While retaining a
commitment to neoliberal policies and huge tax reductions for the wealthiest
Americans and corporations, Trump would be willing to challenge companies
interested in relocating abroad to remain at home or face punitive taxes – at
least this was the rhetoric intended to secure more working class votes.
Whereas Clinton is more open to globalization under neoliberal policies, he
views integration as an impediment to national sovereignty and national
capitalism.

The fiscal policy
announcement he made officially intended to keep companies at home, but it
would entail a massive rise in the US public debt, and at the same time it
would transfer income from the bottom tiers of the taxpayer to the top five
percent. Furthermore, it would then have serious implications in social
programs, including public education and health care that would have to be cut
to fund tax breaks to the rich and the defense budget and devoted to more
corporate subsidies.

3. Militarism and Unilateralism
– The proposals to strengthen defense, while pursuing greater unilateralism in
foreign affairs and asking allies to pay more for their own defense is hardly
new in the American political arena. Trump simply took advantage of the
unpopular wars in Iraq and Pakistan/Afghanistan, which cost the US perhaps as
much as $4.5 trillion once the Homeland Security component is added, to argue
that America will not be paying for the defense of NATO and ASEAN allies that
have the means to pay for their own defense. At the same time, his campaign has
recklessly argued in favor of mass military campaigns to smash terrorism, as
though it is a concentrated conventional force, ignoring that previous
presidents made the same promises and delivered no results.

Regardless of the rhetoric,
he would be highly unlikely to touch the military alliances of the US if
elected to office because his advisors would convince him of the implications
that includes losing the dominant voice in such alliances. Moreover, the US
enjoys the privilege of recommending defense budget allocations for alliance
members, although they do not always abide by Washington’s recommendations. Like
Reagan administration Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger who argued in favor
of the ‘nuclear option’ only to find himself castigated by NATO allies in 1982,
Trump is deemed sufficiently arrogant and reckless to consider seriously the
nuclear option. While he is not so psychotic as to be running around the White
House asking people for the nuclear code, he could conceivably see the need for
small tactical nuclear weapons against a rogue state like North Korea, which
could in fact mean total war. This is an unlikely scenario, but who can afford
to take that chance with an egomaniac?

Clinton Platform

1.Liberal on Social
Issues/Conservative on economic and foreign policy –

The ideological orientation
of modern day Democrats combines neoliberal policies in the domain of economics
and elements of neo-conservatism in foreign affairs. Although there are those
who have criticized Clinton for veering to the right on foreign policy,
defense, and fiscal issues, she is within the mainstream of the Cold War-minded
Democrat Party. Based on her platform, which had to be modified because of pressure
from the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, Clinton is as mainstream neoliberal as
her husband and Obama, both of whom employed liberal Democrat rhetoric but
governed from the right, reflecting the interests of their powerful Wall Street
donors.

Ideologically, Clinton will
be a policy consensus builder in order to be effective but that is hardly a
stretch because ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ may only differ with her on gun
control, woman’s right to choose, immigration policy, race politics, modest
judicial reform to address institutionalized racism in the criminal justice
system, and privacy issues. While she is far less ideological in 2016 than she
was in 1992 when she was first lady, she remains within Democrat Party
perimeters of paying lip service to everything one would expect of a
middle-of-the road liberal since the Kennedy administration. The diverse
popular base of the party is pulling her to the left, but the hundreds of
millions she has received from the elites are pulling her to the right from where
she will govern if elected.

2.Neoliberalism and Globalization –

Clinton has not
rejected globalization any more than neoliberalism that has accounted for the
decline of the American middle class, and she does not go out of her way to
sing its praises. To address the problem of globalization and neoliberal
policies, she has proposed a policy mix that includes: 1. Spending $275
billion for infrastructural development over the next five years; 2. Eliminating
college tuition for families making less than $125,000 a year for in-state
students only; 3. Keeping
Obamacare with some modifications; 4. Equal pay for
women; 5. No new middle
class income tax, but said nothing about indirect taxes and raise gradually the
federal minimum wage that Republicans oppose as ‘too costly’ for businesses.
She and Trump agree that ‘bad trade deals’ must not go through, but she is an
advocate of globalization under neoliberal policies.

3. Militarism and Multilateralism –

There have been many analysts arguing that Clinton’s voting record as a
senator and her policies as Secretary of State suggest she is as hawkish as
many in the Republican camp. During the primary season, the New
York Times ran an article about how she became hawkish. However, she was
always a Cold War Democrat, but liberal on social issues - very typical of Johnson
era Democrats. Unlike Trump who is a unilateralist militarist, she embraces
multilateralism because she sees the benefits of alliance especially NATO, and
understands that the US is hardly in a position to go at it alone in the age of
Asian ascendancy. She also appreciates that multilateralism goes hand in hand
with globalization. Neither Clinton nor Trump would do things very differently
with the defense budget, and she is much more likely to be a military
interventionist as her record indicates than he is, although he would be far
less cautious in making foreign policy and defense policy decisions.

Trump or Clinton? Will it really matter to the vast majority by 2020?

If we follow the polling numbers throughout the summer of 2016, Clinton
should win in November 2016. About two years ago, I wrote an article that
Clinton could not win, but I was assuming she would be facing a conventional
Republican not a populist TV personality. The best educated guess is that the
race will be very close with Clinton winning by a slight margin. This assumes
things remain more or less the same as they are currently with the entire
corporate media behind Clinton, except for FOX, Breitbart and a few other
extreme right wing outlets especially on radio.

Democrat party organization - machine politics - that she has behind her is
about as corrupt as that of the Republicans, given how it conducted itself
during the primary season against Sanders in a number of states. The
combination of hundreds of millions of dollars from large donors and control of
the party machinery is the key to winning elections, rather than popular
sovereignty that afford citizens the illusion that they decide. This does not
mean that a Trump win is out of reach. The segment of voters who dislike both
candidates is rather substantial. They represent the frustration with the
bankrupt American political economy that does not serve for the workers and
middle class and the reality of the fading American Dream for their children.

Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?

Clinton’s private email scandal especially involving the dreadful Benghazi
affair but also the ‘pay for play’ Clinton Foundation donors while in the State
Department ought to give sufficient pause to all citizens about her level of
trustworthiness. When the pro-Clinton New York Times called for the
Clinton Foundation to stop its activities of raising money from domestic and
foreign sources, it was obvious that Clinton had a trustworthiness deficit even
with a partisan news corporation. Political corruption is so layered with legal
covers that she can never be indicted and because the Foundation is indeed
involved in charitable work there is sufficient coverage for her to excuse her
behavior. Not so when it comes to sensitive information while she was in the
State Department using a private email account.

Trump is hardly free of corruption, considering clothing carrying his label
is made in Asia that he criticizes for unfair trade practices and his companies
have relied on undocumented workers as well as models without work visas which
is against the law. Considering that the immigration issue has many facets,
from fear of criminals and terrorists entering the country to cheap labor
undermining the labor market, from xenophobia to seeking a scapegoat amid
structural economic problems, Trump has been vehement about undocumented
immigrants, an issue which raises the question of hypocrisy on his part given
his practices.Yet, his ideologue
followers are willing to overlook all of it and he was right that he would have
to kill someone in broad daylight to lose support from the party base.

According to a public opinion polls, about 60% of people consider both Trump and Clinton untrustworthy. Only 11% consider Clinton trustworthy, while 16% feel the same about Trump.
These are hardly inspiring figures and indicative that people are able to
discern the difference between what these candidates preach and what they
practice. Even so, if we consider that Jimmy Carter was an honest man and
trustworthy even by his enemies’ estimation, experts relegate him to the
category of a failed president because of Iran and the simultaneous energy
crisis that impacted the US economy amid the Vietnam syndrome. Trustworthiness
is a good trait but people expect politicians to break campaign promises and blatantly
lie to secure and retain power by any means necessary within the law. What
value does trustworthiness have for a politician who never promised to address
the core issues of social justice in society, much less so for one who
contributes to the absence of social justice as do Clinton and Trump?

Capability of a president comes down to the people appointed in various
cabinets as well as policy advisors. If a president chooses ideologues whose
goal is to serve the narrowest possible constituency within the defense
establishment at a great cost to society then history will judge the president
as less than capable. Clinton has the experience as first lady and secretary of
state, but this does not mean that she will surround herself with people
interested in the welfare of the majority of the people. After all, the people
she has chosen to help elect her is made up of lobbyists beholden to
corporations. Judged on the merits of advancing the neoliberal and Pax
Americana agenda, Clinton would be capable because she will pay back the donors
with policies that advance their interests. Judged on the criteria of social
justice, she is hardly qualified for the position.

Clearly, Trump has no political experience because he never held political
office, something that appeals to many in the Republican base who have accepted
the corporate media propaganda that politicians are the sole cause of society’s
problems while corporate America is the panacea. Trump’s concept of government
as a corporation, a concept that became popular with neoliberals since Reagan,
plays well with Wall Street and the media. A much more egocentric individual
who publicly claims to know more about everything from foreign affairs to
fiscal policy than mere mortals, Trump will most likely surround himself with
Republican billionaires and ideologues on social, economic, and foreign policy
issues. He will cultivate a cult of personality even more when he is in office
and conduct himself as an imperial figure more than any president since Andrew
Jackson. In this respect, his capabilities will manifest their limits when he runs
into a brick wall in Congress, the UN, and dealing with international
organizations like the IMF and foreign governments. On the other hand, he has admitted that he worked
with the mob because he needed his construction projects completed, thus proving
he can work with just about anyone from Putin to Xi Jinping.

Who will
deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?

In the post-Cold War era, the two dynamics in US policy toward Russia and
China are not ideological but geopolitical and economic. Because there are so
many US companies in China and because China is a major exporter to the US and
buyer of US bonds to finance its balance of payments deficit, the relationship
is determined by mutual interests. At the same time, China’s insistence on
dominating the South China Sea despite opposition from the US and its Asian
partners including Japan is a likely source of continued friction. Although US
policy so far is that there is no military solution to China’s claims in the
South China Sea, this could change with either Clinton or Trump in the White
House. China’s ascendancy in the global power structure will force the US
regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office into strategic and trade
alliances with as many Asian countries as possible to minimize the influence of
Beijing in Asia.

China and Russia expect continuity in US foreign policy if Clinton wins the
presidency, but they know she will be more hawkish than her predecessor
especially toward Russia. This means continuity of the strategic containment
policy by strengthening NATO and ASEAN while pursuing economic engagement with
China and squeezing Russia as hard as possible with sanctions over the Ukraine
and Syrian conflicts that represent balance of power issues. Presidents
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping know Clinton and they know what to expect from
this conventional political leader, yet, they prefer Trump.

It is hardly a secret that both Beijing and Moscow want Trump in the White
House because they assume it would be easier to deal with a businessman than a
professional hawkish politician immersed in Cold War ideological assumptions
about the contemporary world balance of power. Historically under Communist
regimes, both the Russians and the Chinese believed that foreign relations
ought to be conducted in a ‘business-like’ manner, something that Herbert
Hoover popularized back in the 1920s. Moreover, the Chinese and Russian
political leadership favorTrump’s neo-isolationist foreign policy
flirtations and his proposal regional conflicts.

Trump has decried China’s unfair competitiveness and both he and Clinton
are against Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP). However,
Trump is more like Putin and Xi Jinping than Clinton. She would press harder on
human rights issues for example and domestic reforms that they regard as
intervention in their domestic affairs and violation of their national
sovereignty.

Who will
help the economy and create more jobs?

Assuming Clinton pursues a campaign promise for infrastructural development
that ought to provide some job stimulation along with her other promise for a
federal minimum wage law intended to raise living standards for the poorest
Americans. I would not look to her to do more in the area of jobs stimulus because
she has taken hundreds of millions from Wall Street and her policies will not
run counter to what corporations and banks demand. Besides, as soon as the
stock market slumps a bit, the media immediately blames the White House and I
doubt she will want four years of a war declared against her by the media.

Advocates of neoliberal policies believe that the private sector left to
its own devices with considerable fiscal and subsidy incentives from the
corporate welfare state creates jobs. They also believe in least possible regulation
for the environment and worker safety. Above all, neoliberals want the least
possible government protection of labor in every category from collective
bargaining to impede their profit margins. The corporate welfare state will
strengthen under either one while the social welfare state will remain about
the same under Clinton and diminished under Trump.

Who
will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?

Clinton will continue the Obama foreign policy of combining military
solutions with diplomacy but only as a last resort. I expect no changes in the
status quo with Iraq and Afghanistan, but some kind of resolution on Syria simply
because Russia, backed by China and Iran will not yield on this piece of real
estate. ISIS will be hunted down as it creates more enemies, but the policies
of either Clinton or Trump are likely to further alienate Muslims and jihadist
fanaticism will continue. Neither will try to solve the Israeli apartheid
status quo in the Palestinian Territories, neither will pursue a balanced
policy toward Israel and its neighbors, although Clinton is as beholden to the Gulf
State billionaires as George W. Bush. Status quo of Obama will be Clinton’s
policy, although new developments will determine possible policy changes.

Trump has employed bold militarist rhetoric to convince voters he will
defeat ISIS through military campaigns, but also by partnering with Russia in a
more collaborative fashion than Obama. On
the other hand, Trump has alienated Muslims by proposing a values test and insultingly
dismissing Muslims as undesirable immigrants. This is exactly the sort of
rhetoric that encourages militant Muslims who assume that the US has a
crusading foreign policy. His insulting language toward Muslims is as likely to
alienate congressional Democrats and even Republicans as rapprochement with
Russia to resolve some regional issues, including Ukraine and Syria.

Regardless of who wins the race for the White House, it is up to the US, EU
and Middle East allies to consider if they want to preserve or weaken ISIS
which they helped into regional prominence in the first place because of regime
change policies in Syria.It is also up
to them collectively to pursue policies that lessen jihadist activities among
young people especially. Neither Clinton nor Trump alone can do much to reverse
the broader policy of the US under the umbrella of ‘war on terror’ which
strikes many Muslims as an indiscriminate war on 1.7 billion Muslims in the
world.

Conclusions

The promise of politicians
that they will restore the vanishing American Dream is in itself an
acknowledgment that it is fading at the very least if not totally gone for most
people as socioeconomic statistics indicate in any country whose middle class
has been weakening since the late 1970s. History has passed by both Trump and Clinton. Trump envisions an America of the 1980s when he was making money during the Reagan era. Clinton envisions an America of the 1990s when her husband was in the White House employing neoliberal policies that led to more billionaires and millionaires and the continued decline of the middle class.

Regardless of who is the new president
and regardless of the composition of congress, will the American Dream for all people be realized
or are the politicians blatantly and knowingly lying to the voters and
distracting them with issues ranging from terrorism to transgender bathroom
facilities? There are millions who have accepted Republican Party nominee
Donald Trump’s slogan “make America great again”, acknowledging that the
country is not great in terms of middle class and working class living
standards. Although this is a nebulous slogan as vacuous as much of the
candidate’s inane and divisive political rhetoric, presumably it refers to
America in the early Cold War when it enjoyed unrivaled global economic,
political and military hegemony and the dollar was if only it spends more on
defense and pursues economic nationalism.

This utterly naïve slogan runs into
the reality of a weak national economy thoroughly integrated into the global
economy in which Asia is the new power center. For the
hard core backers of either candidate it is important to demonize the other and
argue that instability at home and abroad is imminent with the election of ‘the
wrong’ president. However, in a system of checks and balances and one where
Wall Street prevails, it is highly doubtful that regardless of which one sits
in the Oval Office immediate catastrophe would follow. In fact, even if we were
to go back right before the 1890s when the US economy suffered a depression
after 1892, or during the 1920s right before the 1929 crash and ask the
business and political elites if they would change anything to avert a national
crisis not one of them would opt for change that would undermine the profits
and power of their privileged position. The situation is no different in the
early 21st century when all signs point to a slow decline and
eventual fall of America. Regardless of who sits in the White House and who is
elected to Congress in 2016, all indications are that the US will be a much
weaker country in 2020 largely because of its much larger public debt, weaker
middle class and increased balance of payments deficit that would signal more
problems ahead.

"A
gripping, passion-filled, and suspenseful tale of love, betrayal,
political and religious intrigue, this novel entices the reader’s
senses and intellect beyond conventions. Slaves to Gods and Demons
takes the reader through a roller coaster enthralling journey of
personal trials and triumphs of a family emerging vanquished and
destitute after World War II.

Narrated by a young boy, Morfeos, modeled after the Greco-Roman pagan
deity of sleep and dreams, the book reveals the soul of a people trying
to ascertain and assert their identity while rebuilding their lives and
recapturing the glory of a lost civilization.

Seeking liberation from restraints of time, social conventions, and
binding traditions, the deity of dreams provides the conformist and the
free-spirited characters in the novel with venues for redemption that
are mere paths toward illusions. Exploring the complexities of human
relationships shaped by priest and politician alike, the novel rests on
the central theme that life is invariably a series of illusions, some
of which are euphoric, most horrifying, all an integral part of daily
existence.

Striving for purpose amid life’s absurdities after the destruction of
western civilization in two global wars, the characters in Slaves to
Gods and Demons struggle between holding on to the glory and grandeur of
a pagan legacy and the Christian present shaped by contemporary
secular events in Western Civilization."